1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the Clauses 2.3.2(1), 2.3.2(2), 2.4.1(a), 2.4.1(c) and 2.4.2(a) in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) bearing No. PIU/JICA/GHTY/13(8a)/2010/40 and PIU/JICA/GHTY/ 13(8b)/2010, dated 2.9.2010, Annexure P 4A to the writ petition, for bid for package 8a (International Competitive Bidding) and for bid for package 8b (International Competitive Bidding) respectively.

2. As agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties and in terms of the earlier order of this Court as well as considering the nature of the prayer of the Petitioners and the question involved, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself as ordered by this Court.

3. Initially, the writ petition was filed against the Respondent No. 1 to 6. Later on, the Respondent No. 7 to 9 were brought on record in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 23.11.2010.

4. Heard Mr. S.K. Kapoor, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K.R. Surana, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.M. Mazumder, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and 2, Mr. N. Dutta and Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned senor Counsel assisted by Ms. A. Ajitsaria, learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 6, Mr. Jayanta Mitra, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Padam Khaitan, Mr. K.K. Dutta, Mr. Sanjib Roy, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 7, Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. A. Verma and Mr. A. Hazarika and Mr. Uday Shekhar Roy Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 8. and Mr. A.K. Bhattacharjee, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.K. Choudhury, learned Counsel and Mr. Diganta Lahkar for the Respondent No. 9.

Pleaded case of the parties

5. The brief facts of the case needed to be discussed are as under:

Notices inviting tender dated 2.9.2010 for biding for Package 8a and 8b respectively were issued by the Respondent No. 5, the Chief Executive Officer of Respondent No. 4, the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority,(GMDA) a statutory body corporate, inviting sealed bid from eligible source countries for procurement of supply, delivery and stacking of ductile iron pipes (item rate contract), ISI marked class K9 conforming to IS 8329:2000 or equivalent international standard (hereinafter referred to as package 8a) and for procurement of supply, delivery and stacking of ductile iron pipes (item rate contract), ISI marked class K9 conforming to IS8329:2000 or equivalent international standard, (hereinafter referred to as Package 8b) respectively. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said notices inviting tender, the writ Petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, namely, Jai Balaji Sponge Ltd, an organization producing steel materials like world class ductile iron pipe and having all necessary licenses and permits for manufacturing such ductile iron pipes both K7 and K9 classes of diameter ranging from 100 mm to 1000mm with present production capacity above 6000 M.T of ductile iron pipes per month and being a holder of an appropriate license granted by the Bureau of Indian Standards (hereinafter referred to BIS) for manufacturing ductile iron pipes, (for short DI pipe) purchased the bidding documents from the office of the Respondent No. 5, the Chief Executive Officer, Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (for short GMDA), Guwahati, Assam. Like the Petitioner, (1) the Tata Metalic Kubota Pipes Ltd, (2) Jindal Saw Ltd, the Respondent No. 8 herein, (3) Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd, (4) Electro steel Castings Limited, the Respondent No. 7 herein, (5) Electrotherm (India) Ltd. and (6) Lanco Industries Ltd, the Respondent No. 9 herein also purchased the bidding documents and the Petitioners along with others appeared in the pre-bid discussion. But ultimately as the Petitioner was not able to show the average annual production turnover for five years and receipt of certificate payment up to 1900 million for five years as well as minimum average produc